Method for operating a plurality of GNSS receivers for detecting satellite signal deformation

ABSTRACT

A test metric for satellite sent GNSS code signals is proposed, wherein a signal sent by each satellite i is received at different GNSS receivers, and bias-removed, averaged over the receivers and normalized measurement values are derived out of autocorrelation function values. A correlation matrix Ri,n is built from a matrix Xi,n containing the measurement values in the form of measurement value vectors {right arrow over (X)}i,k from the present time epoch tn and from previous time epochs tk with k=1, . . . , n−1, wherein a principal component analysis is done of matrix Ri,n, wherein a transformed vector {right arrow over (T)}i,n=PCi,nT·{right arrow over (X)}i,nT is calculated, with PCi,n containing at least two eigenvectors having the largest eigenvalues of all eigenpairs. A signal quality monitor test metric SQMi,n is built from the square sum of the entries of transformed vector {right arrow over (T)}i,n, and if SQMi,n is larger than a threshold THR, the satellite signals are disallowed for position determination at all GNSS receivers.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application claims priority to European Patent Application EP 18188063.4, filed Aug. 8, 2018, the entire contents of which are hereby incorporated in full by this reference.

DESCRIPTION Field of the Invention

The invention relates to a method for operating a plurality of GNSS (=Global Navigation Satellite System) receivers, wherein for position determination, the GNSS receivers receive GNSS code signals belonging to signals sent from a multitude of satellites, and wherein each received GNSS code signal is correlated with a reference code signal generated by the receiving GNSS receiver to obtain an autocorrelation function, wherein a multitude of function values of the autocorrelation function at different discrete chip spacings are analyzed and used in obtaining a test metric, wherein using the test metric, a decision is made whether the received GNSS code signals are suitable for position determination or unsuitable for position determination due to satellite signal deformation, and wherein the GNSS code signals found unsuitable for position determination are excluded from position determination. The invention allows monitoring GNSS code signals with respect to satellite signal deformation with an improved integrity and continuity.

Background of the Invention

An apparatus for navigation satellite signal quality monitoring is known from EP 1 332 378 B1, noted also as [AD09].

GNSS (=Global Navigation Satellite System) receivers are used to determine the position of, for example, moving vehicles such as a plane or a ship. A number of satellites orbiting in space regularly send out GNSS code signals, and in a GNSS receiver the received signals are correlated with reference signals (also called replica signals) in order to determine a time delay between the transmission at the respective satellite and the arrival at the GNSS receiver. These time delays may be used to determine distances to the respective satellites, which move on known trajectories, so position information (such as geographical longitude, latitude and height) can be calculated.

Occasionally, a satellite may become defective, such that the GNSS code signal sent by the satellite is deformed (corrupted), i.e. does not have the properties necessary for accurate position determination. The most important types of signal deformations are a signal delay as compared to the correct timing (typically characterized by a delay time Δ), and an analogue ringing superimposed on the signal (typically characterized by a decay coefficient σ), or combinations of both. If the deformed signals received at a GNSS receiver are used for position determination, position errors may result.

Signal deformation is typically measured using an autocorrelation function, applying a convolution with a replica signal. It should be noted that some small signal deformation is present also in the fault free case, for reasons inherent to the applied (properly working) hardware and the measurement methodology.

If the position determination is safety-critical, such as in aeronautic or railway applications, deformed signals have to be identified quickly, and have to be excluded from position determination.

Signal deformation monitoring is mandated by e.g. ICAO (international civil aviation organization) in GBAS (ground based augmentation system) and SBAS (satellite based augmentation system) for safety-critical differential satellite based navigation systems used in aviation [AD01]. So far, two monitoring methods have been suggested, compare [AD02-AD06].

EP 1 332 378 B1 discloses an apparatus for navigation signal quality monitoring. For a received GNSS code signal, autocorrelation function values l_(i) are determined for various chip spacings. Then difference values d_(k)=l_(k)−l_(k−1)−Ed_(k) are calculated resulting in a vector d, with E being an expectation value, and a covariance matrix P=E[(d−m)(d−m)^(T)] is calculated, and m being the mean vector of d. Then the diagonal matrix D is calculated for P, using Cholesky factorization, for obtaining variances of {tilde over (σ)}_(i) ². A fault value

${d\left\lbrack \chi^{2} \right\rbrack} = {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{{\overset{\sim}{d}}_{i}^{2}}{{\overset{\sim}{\sigma}}_{i}^{2}}}$ is then calculated, which may be compared to a threshold in order to determine the existence of a fault.

The difficulty in monitoring GNSS code signals for detecting satellite signal deformation is on the one hand to reliably identify satellite faults (“integrity”), and on the other hand, not to unnecessarily exclude a satellite working fine (“continuity”). Further, the monitoring procedure should have a time-to-alert short enough to exclude defect satellites before a dangerous situation can manifest.

[AD07] deals with principal component analysis (PCA) as a detection methodology for ground penetrating radar. [RD01] gives a general description of recursive PCA. [AD08] describes the use of pre-thresholds in monitor statistic.

Object of the invention

It is the object of the present invention to provide a method for operating GNSS receivers, which allows monitoring GNSS code signals with an improved integrity and continuity.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION Short Description of the Invention

This object is achieved, in accordance with the invention, by a method as introduced in the beginning,

wherein for each satellite i, with i being a satellite index, using the test metric includes the following steps:

a) for each time epoch t_(k) in which the GNSS receivers receive GNSS code signals belonging to the signal of the same carrier frequency sent from the satellite i, forming a vector {right arrow over (X)}_(i,k) of measurement values X_(m,i,k), with m being a chip spacing index, and k being a measurement time epoch index, and the respective measurement value X_(m,i,k) being derived from normalized and bias-removed function values of the autocorrelation functions of the GNSS code signals received at the GNSS receivers, combined for a multitude of the GNSS receivers;

b) obtaining the correlation matrix R_(i,n) at time epoch t_(n) from the epoch-wise measurement value vectors {right arrow over (X)}_(i,k) obtained over a plurality of n time epochs t_(k) with k=1, . . . , n, with n being a monitoring time epoch index, which results in matrix

${X_{i,n} = \begin{bmatrix} {\overset{->}{X}}_{i,1} \\ \vdots \\ {\overset{->}{X}}_{i,n} \end{bmatrix}},$ in particular with R_(i,n)˜X^(T) _(i,n) X_(i,n) with X^(T) _(i,n) being the transpose matrix of X_(i,n),

c) doing a principal component analysis on correlation matrix R_(i,n), thus obtaining an eigendecomposition of matrix R_(i,n) into a multitude of eigenpairs, namely pairs of eigenvector and eigenvalue,

d) calculating for time epoch t_(n) a signal quality monitor test metric SQM_(i,n) by transforming vector {right arrow over (X)}_(i,n) to vector {right arrow over (T)}_(i,n) via multiplication with principal component matrix PC_(i,n) and forming the square sum of vector {right arrow over (T)}_(i,n)'s entries, wherein PC_(i,n) contains at least two eigenvectors of R_(i,n), with the eigenvectors chosen having the largest eigenvalues of all eigenpairs,

e) comparing SQM_(i,n) to a predefined threshold value THR, and if SQM_(i,n) exceeds THR, the entirety of GNSS code signals received at all GNSS receivers belonging to the signal of the same carrier frequency sent by satellite i in time epoch t_(n) are considered unsuitable for position determination due to satellite signal deformation,

wherein for subsequent time epochs having passed, the signal quality monitor test metric SQM_(i,n) is determined again, with n increasing by 1 for each time epoch having passed.

The present invention proposes to base a test metric on a principal component analysis (PCA), see step c), applied on a correlation matrix R_(i,n), see step b), obtained from bias removed and normalized function values of the autocorrelation function of the GNSS code signals received at the GNSS receivers from the same satellite i at the same carrier frequency, compare step a).

In step a), in order to increase reliability of the method, the measurement values X_(m,i,k) each contain information from a multitude (typically all) of the GNSS receivers (or their respective received GNSS code signals) for a particular chip spacing index value m; the respective function values from the GNSS receivers are used in a combination (such as averaged). By this means, any receiver-specific error effects like uncorrelated noise or potentially corrupt signal observations resulting from a defect of a single receiver are attenuated, and signal deformations resulting from a satellite defect are kept pronounced.

The principal component analysis may increase the response to signal deformation, i.e. the recognizability of deformations is increased, in particular for deformations originating from satellite defects. For this purpose, according to the invention, the principal component matrix PC_(i,n) includes the eigenvectors of at least the two largest eigenvalues (and probably more) of all eigenpairs. In step d), in the principal component matrix PC_(i,n), the eigenvectors are typically in sorted order from largest to smallest based on the size of their corresponding eigenvalues. Sorting may help to identify the largest eigenvalues and corresponding eigenvectors in case not all eigenvectors are to be taken into account.

The principal component analysis is used for constructing the signal quality test metric SQM_(i,n), see step d), which is used for comparison to a threshold value THR for deciding on an exclusion of satellite i, compare step e). The signal quality test metric SQM_(i,n) is based not only on information from the most recent (monitoring) time epoch t_(n), but also includes information from previous time epochs, which helps to identify satellite defects. Satellite defects typically lead to signal distortions for all GNSS code signals sent by the respective satellite after the defect has manifested, whereas distortions occurring only in an isolated (measurement) time epoch t_(k) typically do not originate from a satellite defect (but e.g. from thermal noise). Note that index n refers to the most recent time epoch, i.e. the monitoring time epoch, whereas index k refers to the observation time epochs in general (and often previous/past time epochs).

The inventive method may be performed in “real time”, i.e. continuously during operation of the GNSS receivers, so a particularly quick response to newly occurring satellite defects is provided. Real time application typically includes a recursive calculation of the eigendecomposition of R_(i,n). The method is particularly suitable for recursive calculation, since it takes up information from previous time epochs again anyway.

The method typically uses at least 2 GNSS receivers, preferably at least 5 GNSS receivers, most preferably at least 7 GNSS receivers. Further, the method may be used to check for satellite signal deformation of only 1 satellite, but typically is used to check for satellite signal deformation of at least 3 satellites, preferably at least 5 satellites, most preferably at least 10 satellites in parallel; typically all satellites intended for use in position determination by the GNSS receivers are checked with the inventive method. The method may be applied for making position determination safer in particular in railway applications; for this purpose, one or a plurality of GNSS receivers may be placed on a train, in particular a running train. However, numerous further applications, such as position determination for ships and airplanes, are also possible. The invention may be applied for example with GPS L1 C/A signals or GLONASS L1 CSA signals.

In summary, the inventive method proposes a single test metric, which allows for a distinct integrity and continuity performance allocation and probabilistic performance assessment. All applied transformations are linear, so the original link to the underlying distribution of raw input values (autocorrelation function values) is maintained. The invention provides a higher susceptibility of signal deformations, as compared to known metrics. Additionally a specific correlator spacing (in particular a non-symmetric distribution) of the correlator measurement points (used chip spacing positions) may be utilized, in particular with more “late” correlator points configured, to increase the detection performance. The transformation to principal components maximizes the test metric size in case of faulted (from normal deviating) signals. A significant advantage is the fast convergence of the algorithm: Conventional covariance estimators and eigenvalue determination schemes require a large amount of data to increase the confidence on the eigenvalue resolution. When a recursive scheme is applied, in accordance with the invention, these disadvantages are avoided and a fast applicability of the monitor discriminator with a relatively short waiting period is provided. With small noise under nominal conditions, which is typically the case for GBAS ground subsystem installations, the operational range of the monitor extends, i.e. it provides more space for the trade-off between integrity and continuity than other monitors. A minimized highpass behavior and a possibility for statistic calibration provides detection capability also for ramp-like or slow changes (signal deformations) besides sudden changes. Note that the test metric can be calibrated; depending on the application, this may be advantageous, since no integrity violations will result with a misconfigured bias calibration of the monitor.

Preferred Variants of the Invention

In a preferred variant of the inventive method, in step a), a respective measurement value X_(m,i,k) is derived from one function value at a particular chip spacing, combined for said multitude of GNSS receivers. In this case, the chip spacing index may describe said particular chip spacing directly. This is particularly simple to calculate, and may be particularly useful in signal deformations broadening or narrowing the autocorrelation function curve in time. In this variant, for each GNSS receiver (or the respective received GNSS code signal) of the multitude of GNSS receivers, the one functional value at the particular chip spacing (see m) is determined, and the entirety of these functional values from the multitude of receivers are used for deriving the measurement value by combining these functional values (e.g. by averaging or applying a weighting function).

In an alternative variant, in step a), a respective measurement value X_(m,i,k) is derived from a combination of function values of different chip spacings, in particular from a difference of function values of two neighboring chip spacings, combined for said multitude of GNSS receivers. In this case, the chip spacing index m describes (or contains) the (particular) combination (e.g. pair) of corresponding chip spacings. The typical method of combination is calculating a difference of two functional values, which preferably correspond to neighboring chip spacings. This may be particularly useful in identifying signal deformations resulting in strong gradients in the autocorrelation function curve. In this typical case, for each GNSS receiver (or the respective GNSS code signal) of the multitude of GNSS receivers, the difference between two functional values at two different (particular) chip spacings is determined, and the entirety of these differences (for the two functional values at the particular chip spacings) from the multitude of receivers are used for deriving the measurement value by combining these differences (e.g. by averaging or applying a weighting function). Analogue procedure may be applied for other methods of combination than calculating a difference of function values.

Particularly preferred is a variant wherein at least for some time epochs t_(n), in particular later time epochs t_(n), in step b) and c), obtaining the correlation matrix R_(i,n) and the principal component analysis is done recursively, taking into account eigenpairs obtained for a previous time epoch for the same satellite i. Typically, for this approach, a “next” matrix R_(i,k+1) is expressed as a function of “previous” matrix R_(i,k), and the eigenpairs obtained for R_(i,k) before are used for calculating the eigenpairs of R_(i,k+1). This accelerates the calculation of the “next” matrix R_(i,k+1) (or its components) and/or of the eigenpairs of “next” correlation matrix R_(i,k+1) and reduces the amount of information to be stored enormously as compared to a “common” calculation (in particular for later time epochs t_(n), i.e. where n is large), and may allow in particular a “real time” calculation of SQM_(i,n).

In an advantageous further development of this variant, in an expression for calculating the correlation matrix R_(i,n) recursively, a forgetting factor τ is applied, such that the older a time epoch t_(k), the less it contributes to the expression for calculating the correlation matrix R_(i,n), in particular wherein the forgetting factor performs an exponential weighting with respect to time. In this way, an adequate weight of recent changes in the signal form may be identified, even if the algorithm has been initialized long ago.

Particularly preferred is a method variant wherein at least for some time epochs t_(n), in particular earlier time epochs t_(n), in step c), the principal component analysis is done for the respective correlation matrix R_(i,n) for a plurality of time epochs t_(k) with k=1 . . . n in common,

in particular where R_(i,n) is calculated with R_(i,n)=1/(n−1)*X^(T) _(i,n) X_(i,n), with n being the number of measurement epochs since algorithm initialization and X^(T) _(i,n) being the transpose matrix of X_(i,n). For early time epochs (i.e. with n being small), a common (non-recursive) calculation is relatively simple to do.

In a preferred variant, in step a), the respective measurement values X_(m,i,k) are derived from normalized and bias-removed function values of the autocorrelation functions of the GNSS code signals received at the GNSS receivers, averaged over the multitude of the GNSS receivers. Averaging the function values is a particularly simple way to obtain a combined information from a multitude (and typically all) GNSS receivers at chip spacing index value m. Note that alternatively, weighted calculations may be applied, for example averages of the squared function values or function value combinations.

In a particularly preferred variant, in step a), for forming the measurement values X_(m,i,k) of vector {right arrow over (X)}_(i,k), the function values of the autocorrelation function undergo said bias removal, taking into account corresponding function values of an autocorrelation function that would result from a GNSS code signal received at receiver j affected only by expected signal deformation, in particular caused by satellite hardware and/or receiver hardware and/or signal processing, thus obtaining per GNSS receiver j a vector {right arrow over (P)} _(i,j,k) of difference values p _(m,i,j,k) for each time epoch t_(k) and each satellite i. This is simple to establish in practice, and allows to take into account particularities of each receiver. The bias removal is either performed based on fixed, calibrated and configured bias values or based on bias values continuously determined over previous time epochs of fault free operation.

In a further development of the above two variants used in common, in step a), for forming the measurement values X_(m,i,k) of vector {right arrow over (X)}_(i,k), said averaging is done over a set of at least 2, preferably at least 5, most preferably at least 7, GNSS receivers on the difference values p _(m,i,j,k) of the vector {right arrow over (p)} _(i,j,k), thus obtaining a vector {right arrow over (p)} _(i,k) of averaged values p _(m,i,k). In this way, a common information about the GNSS signals of the multitude of GNSS receivers may be obtained in a simple way.

In modification of the above further development, in step a), for forming the measurement values X_(m,i,k) of vector {right arrow over (X)}_(i,k), said normalization is done on the vector {right arrow over (p)} _(i,k) of averaged values p _(m,i,k) by dividing the averaged values p _(m,i,k) with the 1-sigma standard deviations σ_(m) of Gaussian normal distributions describing the noise distribution in the fault-free case, thus obtaining the measurement values X_(m,i,k) of vector {right arrow over (X)}_(i,k). Due to the normalization of the measurement values X_(m,i,k) the nominal correlation between the autocorrelation function values is already considered. In case the normalization was performed directly with the autocorrelation function values and afterwards the combination (like the difference) between the function values of the autocorrelation function was performed, the nominal correlation between the function values would not be removed by the normalization process and thus the test metric would show a small deviation in fault free conditions.

Particularly preferred is a variant wherein the correlation matrix R_(i,n) is built on smoothed function values where the smoothing is achieved by a noise reduction process based on low-pass filtering. Smoothing reduces the influence of singular events, which typically are not caused by a satellite defect. Note that the smoothing may be performed before or after bias removal/combining (in particular averaging)/normalization, in accordance with this variant.

In an advantageous method variant, in step d), matrix PC_(i,n) is based on all eigenvectors of R_(i,n). By this means, a particularly high integrity can be achieved, i.e. it becomes unlikely that significant signal deformations remain undetected. Note that alternatively, only a part of the eigenvectors having the largest eigenvalues may be used, reducing the calculation efforts and thus accelerating the calculation.

Further preferred is a variant wherein the chip spacing index m contains at least 3 chip spacings, preferably at least 5 chip spacings. In other words, m runs at least from 1 to 3 or at least from 1 to 5. The number of chip spacings (“positions”) is also referred to as M. In general, with more chip spacings, more reliably signal deformation detection (both with respect to integrity and continuity) may be achieved.

Particularly preferred is a variant wherein the chip spacings of the autocorrelation function values used in obtaining the test metric are chosen predominantly on the late side. This has been found to increase the detection performance, as compared to a centered choice or a choice predominantly on the early side.

Advantageous is a variant wherein in step e), if SQM_(i,n) exceeds THR in a time epoch t_(n) for satellite i, the entirety of GNSS code signals received at all GNSS receivers belonging to signals of the same carrier frequency sent by the same satellite i in a number of subsequent time epochs are considered unsuitable for position determination due to satellite signal deformation, too. This increases reliability of the position determination and avoids inclusion of GNSS code signals into position determination for which no signal deformation may be identified, but the satellite from which the signal originates is still defect and therefore its signal not trustworthy.

Also within the scope of the present invention is a set of GNSS receivers, adapted for performing the inventive method described above. Such a set of GNSS receivers may achieve a very high reliability of position determination, both for “integrity” and for “continuity”. Note that the set of GNSS receivers typically has a common controller device, which analyses the function values of the autocorrelation functions of these receivers, and decides on blocking of particular satellites (or signals received from them) at the set of receivers. Note that the GNSS receivers of a set may belong to a GBAS (ground based augmentation system) ground subsystem, in particular to perform CAT III approach and landing operations, or an SBAS (satellite based augmentation system) ground station, in particular for SBAS Ranging and Integrity Monitoring Stations (RIMS). A set of receivers may further include one or a plurality of receivers placed on a running train or on multiple running trains; position information may be used to identify occupied and non-occupied tracks, in particular for railway signaling.

Further advantages can be extracted from the description and the enclosed drawing. The features mentioned above and below can be used in accordance with the invention either individually or collectively in any combination. The embodiments mentioned are not to be understood as exhaustive enumeration but rather have exemplary character for the description of the invention.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The invention is shown in the drawing.

FIG. 1 shows a schematic illustration of an inventive set of receivers and a multitude of satellites for use in the inventive method;

FIG. 2 shows a schematic illustration of an autocorrelation function obtained at a GNSS receiver, in the course of the inventive method, in a situation without a satellite defect;

FIG. 3 shows a schematic flow diagram of a variant of the inventive method.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS 1. Inventive Set of GNSS Receivers

FIG. 1 illustrates in a schematic view a set 5 of GNSS (global navigation satellite system) receivers 1-4 which are operated in accordance with the inventive method.

In the example shown, two GNSS receivers 1, 2 are located on a first running train 6, namely at the front and at the end of said train 6. Another GNSS receiver 3 is located on a second running train 7 here. Further, a GNSS receiver 4 is located at an immobile ground station 8. GNSS receivers 1, 2, 3 are used for position determination of trains 6, 7. Further, GNSS receiver 4 (whose position is known and not variable) is used to support the position determination at the other GNSS receivers 1-3, here by providing correction information about satellite paths necessary for position determination at the other receivers 1-3.

A plurality of satellites 9-12, four of which are shown here, orbit in space and send out GNSS code signals, here simply referred to as signals 13, 14, periodically. The signals 13, 14 are received at the GNSS receivers 1-4, with the received signals being referred to as GNSS code signals. The time of their arrival at the respective GNSS receivers 1-4 is used to obtain position information, taking into account known satellite trajectories and known transmission times, and applying a synchronization of clocks of receivers 1-4 and satellites 9-12. Note that in general, the signals 13, 14 of four satellites 9-12 are required at a GNSS receiver 1-4 to obtain a full position information (longitude, latitude, altitude), including one satellite for time synchronization purposes. In railway applications, where trains can only move on known railway tracks, two satellites 9-12 may be enough for position determination. Note that GPS (global positioning system), with which the invention may be applied, as a typical global navigation satellite system provides at least twenty-four satellites operational in space.

The signal 13, 14 is typically a sine wave-like carrier signal onto which a binary code signal is modulated. The time of arrival of a signal 13, 14 is typically determined via an autocorrelation function, which correlates the demodulated code part of the received signal 13, 14 with a reference code signal (or replica GNSS code signal) at different discrete chip spacings (or time delays) in the GNSS receiver 1-4, and the time delay leading to maximum of the autocorrelation function can be assumed to indicate the time of arrival.

When the signal generation part of a satellite 9-12 is defective, the sent signals 13, 14 can be deformed (corrupted), and the received GNSS code signals at the receivers 1-4 result in deformed autocorrelation function curves. According to the invention, autocorrelation function values of all receivers 1-4 are analyzed as described below in more detail, wherein information about GNSS code signals of the same satellite are combined and used for determining whether the code signal generating part of this satellite works properly. By means of a signal quality monitor test metric it is decided whether all GNSS code signals received from this satellite at all receivers are included in or excluded from position determination. For this purpose, the GNSS code receivers provide autocorrelation function values about the received GNSS code signals to a common controller device 15 here, which analyses the autocorrelation function values and indicates to the receivers 1-4 which satellites 9-12 or their respective received GNSS code signals are currently suitable for position determination.

2. Autocorrelation Function

FIG. 2 shows a typical curve of an observable autocorrelation function ACF^(obs) (upward axis) for a received GNSS code signal from a satellite i in a particular (measurement) time epoch t_(k) at a GNSS receiver j as a function of the chips or time delay (axis to the right). The autocorrelation function ACF^(obs) is wavy, and deviates from the strictly triangular ideal autocorrelation function ACF^(ideal) that would result if the GNSS code signal received at the GNSS receiver was unaffected by any signal deformation, in particular caused by receiver hardware, satellite hardware and signal processing.

In practice, the observable autocorrelation function ACF^(obs) is determined (“measured”) only at a few discrete chip spacings, compare chip spacing index m. In the example shown, m runs from 1 to 3, i.e. the number of chips spacing positions is M=3. The chip spacing positions are chosen here predominantly on the “late” side (on the right side of chip=0).

The observable autocorrelation function ACF^(obs) is determined, in the course of the invention, in each time frame t_(k) for each GNSS receiver j and for each satellite i (for a particular carrier frequency) for a plurality of chip spacings m, so the observable autocorrelation function values can be noted as ACF^(obs) _(m,i,j,k). The ideal autocorrelation function ACF^(ideal) is typically independent from the GNSS receiver and the time frame t_(k), but dependent on the autocorrelation characteristics of the pseudo-random noise code sequence that is broadcast by satellite i (see [AD03]), so the ideal autocorrelation function values can be noted as ACF^(ideal) _(m,i).

The information about signal deformation (and therefore possible satellite defects) is included in the difference between the observable autocorrelation function and the ideal autocorrelation function, with p _(m,i,j,k)=ACF^(obs) _(m,i,j,k)−ACF^(ideal) _(m,i)   [E1]

Typically, a GNSS receiver provides said values p_(m,i,j,k) for further analysis, i.e. for use as autocorrelation function values, in accordance with the invention. Subtracting ACF^(ideal) _(m,i) is in this case done already within the GNSS receiver, as a first step of a bias removal. However, note that alternatively, this first step of bias removal can also be done later on, in particular together with the further bias removals.

In FIG. 2 shown, ACF^(obs) only contains components expected, namely from the “ideal” autocorrelation function ACF^(ideal) _(m,i), from receiver bias (see μ_(m,j,k)), from satellite bias (see satBias_(m,i)) and from thermal (measurement) noise (see η_(m,i,j,k)). In the course of the invention, it is intended to identify further deformations of the ACF^(obs), i.e. deformations that go beyond the expected deformation in agreement with expected components, also referred to as “evil waveform” (see below).

3. Overview Over the Inventive Method

The course of the inventive method for operating a plurality of GNSS receivers is described by way of the example below and in correlation with FIG. 3.

For a given (monitoring) time epoch t_(n), compare 100, the autocorrelation function values p_(m,i,j,n) for a particular satellite i or for its corresponding received GNSS code signals, respectively, are determined 110 at each receiver j=1, . . . , J (with J: amount of GNSS receivers participating) for all considered chip spacings m=1, . . . , M (with M: number of chip spacings considered). In the example shown, the determined autocorrelation function values p_(m,i,j,n) are already bias-removed with respect to the ideal (triangular) autocorrelation, as described in [E1], but still contain the signal deformations by receiver hardware, satellite hardware and signal processing.

As a next step 120, the autocorrelation function values p_(m,i,j,n) are further prepared, namely by removing remaining biases due to receiver hardware (compare μ_(m,j,k) above), satellite hardware (compare satBias_(m,i) above) and signal processing. Then, apart from statistical variations like thermal noise, the only remaining contribution to the bias-removed autocorrelation signal should be based on potentially present evil waveform. Further, an averaging of the bias-removed autocorrelation function values is done over the J receivers participating. Finally, a normalization is done, compensating the non-unit variance thermal noise levels of particularly ACF^(obs) component η_(m,i,j,k). The resulting bias-removed, averaged and normalized measurement values X_(m,i,n) with unit variance can be rewritten as vector {right arrow over (X)}_(i,n), the vector entries running from m=1 to M.

Then in step 130, a correlation matrix R_(i,n) is determined, involving e.g. matrix multiplication of X_(i,n) ^(T) and X_(i,n), wherein

$X_{i,n} = {\begin{bmatrix} {\overset{->}{X}}_{i,1} \\ \vdots \\ {\overset{->}{X}}_{i,n} \end{bmatrix}.}$

Here previous vectors {right arrow over (X)}_(i,k) for k<n can be obtained from a readout of a storage 140. The storage also provides previous R_(i,k) for k<n which can be used for calculating R_(i,n). Further, the storage stores eigenvectors and eigenvalues of previous correlation matrices R_(i,k) with k<n.

As a next step 150, correlation matrix R_(i,n) undergoes a principal component analysis (PCA) for obtaining a matrix P_(i,n) of eigenvectors and a matrix Λ_(i,n) of eigenvalues, here applying a recursive approach using previous correlation matrices R_(i,k), previous matrices of eigenvectors P_(i,k) and previous matrices of eigenvalues Λ_(i,k).

It should be noted that {right arrow over (X)}_(i,n), R_(i,n), P_(i,k) and Λ_(i,k) are stored for preparing the next time epoch, compare the dotted lines to storage 140.

Taking at least the two eigenvectors with the largest eigenvalues into a principal component matrix PC_(i,n), a vector {right arrow over (T)}_(i,n)=PC_(i,n) ^(T)·{right arrow over (X)}_(i,n) ^(T) is determined, see step 160.

Then a signal quality monitor test metric SQM_(i,n) is calculated, by adding the squares of the vector entries of {right arrow over (T)}_(i,n), compare step 170.

Then SQM_(i,n) is compared with a predefined threshold value THR, see step 180. THR is chosen such that a desired integrity is achieved, e.g. such that detection of a signal distortion leading to a position determination error of more than 0.75 m is missed with a likelihood of 10⁻⁹ or less. As a characteristic of the inventive method, thanks to the principal component analysis, the continuity will remain high at the same time, i.e. the probability of falsely detecting a signal distortion despite the signal being fine is low, such as 10⁻⁹ or less.

If SQM_(i,n)>THR, the currently checked satellite i is excluded from position determination at the GNSS receivers at least for the present time epoch t_(n), and preferably also for a number of future time epochs (or until external news spreads that satellite i is working fine again, e.g. for GPS via NANUs (Notice Advisory to Navstar Users)), compare step 190.

If SQM_(i,n)≤THR, the currently checked satellite i is (or stays) allowed for position determination at the GNSS receivers for the present time epoch t_(n), compare step 200.

The described routine is repeated for all satellites participating in the method, compare step 210. Typically all satellites that are set up for position determination of the GNSS receivers should be checked in general.

Once it is clear which satellites may contribute to position determination of the GNSS receivers in time epoch t_(n), position determination based on the received GNSS code signals received in the current time epoch t_(n) may be performed, see step 220, using received GNSS code signals from allowed satellites, and not using received GNSS code signals from excluded satellites.

The method is then repeated for the next time epoch with index value n+1, compare step 230.

4. Description of the Inventive Method in its Preferred Mode

In the following, a more detailed description is given for the course of the inventive method by way of example, in its preferred mode.

Characterization of Measured Autocorrelation Function (ACF) Values

The functional model for the raw Autocorrelation Function (ACF) correlator measurements can be described by (compare also FIG. 2 again): p _(m,i,j,k)=μ_(m,j,k)+satBias_(m,i)+η_(m,i,j,k)(+EWF_(m,i,j,k))   [E2]

where:

-   -   p_(m,i,j,k)=autocorrelation function value, measured at discrete         PRN (pseudo-random noise) code chip spacing point index m (with         m ∈ {1, . . . , M and M≥3}, where M is the number of chip         spacings along the autocorrelation function (ACF)) for GNSS         satellite i at GNSS receiver j for epoch t_(k),     -   μ_(m,j,k)=receiver bias estimate at discrete chip spacing point         index m at receiver j for epoch t_(k),     -   satBias_(m,i)=PRN code-related satellite bias of satellite i at         the m^(th) chip spacing; typically determined offline from long         measurement campaigns and then configured or determined         continuously online during signal deformation fault-free         measurement epochs. The PRN-code related satellite bias is also         dependent on the specific hardware of the Satellite Vehicle         (SV). PRN switches to a different Satellite Vehicle Number (SVN)         usually occur when a satellite is replaced.     -   η_(m,i,j,k)=measurement noise at chip spacing index m for         satellite i at receiver j for epoch t_(k),     -   EWF_(m,i,j,k)=optional signal deformation (“Evil Waveform”)         error at point m for satellite i at receiver j for epoch t_(k).         An “Evil waveform” contribution occurs in case of a satellite         defect, and this contribution to the autocorrelation function         values shall be detected in the course of the invention, in         order to avoid use of corrupted GNSS code signals in position         determination.

The distribution function of each chip spacing point's ACF values p_(m,i,j,k) over time can be described by Gaussian normal distribution functions: p_(m,i,j,k)→N(μacf_(m,i,j,k), σ² _(m,i,j,k))   [E3]

where:

-   -   m=ACF measurement point index (with m ∈ {1, . . . , M}),     -   i=satellite index,     -   j=receiver index,     -   k=measurement time epoch index,     -   μacf_(m,i,j,k)=mean value of ACF values at chip spacing point m         for satellite i at receiver j until epoch t_(k),     -   σ_(m,i,j,k)=standard deviation of ACF values at chip spacing         point m for satellite i at receiver j until epoch t_(k);         virtually identical to standard deviation of measurement noise         η_(m,i,j,k).

Desired Characterization Input Values to the Principal Component Analysis

To optimize the statistical properties of the input to the subsequently described Principal Component Analysis (PCA), a bias removal and normalization of the ACF values p_(m,i,j,k) is carried out to obtain jointly standard normally distributed input data with zero mean and unit variance: X_(m,i,k)(p_(m,i,j,k))→N(0,1)   [E4]

where:

-   -   X_(m,i,k)(p_(m,i,j,k))=bias-free, normalized metric for chip         spacing point m for satellite i at epoch t_(k) averaged over all         GNSS receivers; function of p_(m,i,j,k).

Input Value Preparation: Satellite Bias Removal from ACF Measurement Data and Smoothing with a Short Filter Time Constant for Noise Reduction

First, any satellite biases are removed from the ACF measurements and the satellite bias-free result is (e.g. 30-second) smoothed to mitigate multipath-related effects. The (e.g. 30 s) smoothing represents a first order low pass filter and is performed to reduce the noise on the raw ACF measurements:

$\begin{matrix} {{\overset{\_}{p}}_{m,i,j,k} = {{\frac{k_{30} - 1}{k_{30}} \cdot {\overset{\_}{p}}_{m,i,j,{k - 1}}} + {\frac{1}{k_{30}} \cdot \left( {p_{m,i,j,k} - {satBias}_{m,i}} \right)}}} & \lbrack{E5}\rbrack \end{matrix}$

where:

-   -   p _(m,i,j,k)=smoothed ACF value at point m (with m ∈ {1, . . . ,         M} and M≥3) for satellite i at receiver j for epoch t_(k),     -   k₃₀=example filter time constant of 30, increasing from 1 to 30         for the initial 30 epochs and then remaining constant,     -   satBias_(m,i)=PRN code-related satellite bias of satellite i at         the m^(th) chip spacing point; determined offline from long         measurement campaigns and then configured.

Input Value Preparation: GNSS Receiver-Specific ACF Measurement Bias Determination Via Smoothing of Satellite Bias-Free Receiver Bias Estimates with a Long Filter Time Constant

The satellite bias-free but non-smoothed ACF measurements are also used to determine GNSS receiver bias estimates, which are smoothed with a long filter time constant (of like for example 1000 s) to avoid short-term variations like noise while preserving long-term variations like drifts:

$\begin{matrix} {\mu_{m,j,k} = {{\frac{k_{1000} - 1}{k_{1000}} \cdot \mu_{m,j,{k - 1}}} + {\frac{1}{k_{1000}} \cdot \frac{1}{N_{sat}} \cdot {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N_{sat}}\left( {p_{m,i,j,k} - {satBias}_{m,i}} \right)}}}} & \lbrack{E6}\rbrack \end{matrix}$

where:

-   -   μ_(m,j,k)=receiver bias estimate at chip spacing point m at         receiver j for epoch t_(k),     -   p_(m,i,j,k) =raw ACF measurement value at point m for satellite         i at receiver j for epoch t_(k),     -   k₁₀₀₀=example filter time constant of 1000, increasing from 1 to         1000 for the initial 1000 epochs and then remaining constant,     -   N_(sat)=number of satellites, which fulfill the following         conditions:         -   1. Satellite is visible, above 5° elevation and “healthy” at             this receiver at time epoch t_(k),         -   2. In the previous time epoch t_(k−1) the satellite was not             subject of a signal deformation detection.             -   The number of satellites fulfilling these conditions                 must be at least 1, but should preferably be ≥5,                 otherwise the receiver bias is not updated in this                 example. Condition 2) is used to avoid any evil waveform                 (EWF)-related falsification of the receiver bias                 estimates.

In case the set of available satellites is sufficiently large, the satellite i that shall be monitored for presence of signal deformations can optionally be excluded from computation of μ_(m,j,k).

Input Value Preparation: Computation of GNSS Receiver Bias Estimate Differences Between Subsequent Measurement Epochs t_(k)

The PCA algorithm used in this example does not need the actual receiver bias estimates but their differences between subsequent time epochs: Δμ_(m,j,k)=μ_(m,j,k)−μ_(m,j,k−1)   [E7]

The rationale for this will be explained later-on. If the receiver bias estimates are not updated due to N_(sat)<4 in [E6], then the bias differences become zero.

Input Value Preparation: GNSS Receiver Bias Removal from Satellite Bias-Free, Smoothed ACF Measurement Data

The (e.g. 30-second) smoothed, satellite bias-free measurement data of [E5] is made receiver bias-free by subtracting the corresponding estimates of [E6]: p _(m,i,j,k) =p _(m,i,j,k)−μ_(m,j,k)   [E8]

The measurement data is now assumed to be bias-free and zero-centered.

Input Value Preparation: Averaging of Bias-Free ACF Measurement Data and Receiver Bias Differences Over All GNSS Receivers

Receiver bias differences and smoothed bias-free measurement data are then averaged over all valid receivers:

$\begin{matrix} {{\Delta\mu}_{m,i,k} = {\frac{1}{N_{{Rx},i}} \cdot {\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N_{{Rx},i}}{\Delta\mu}_{m,j,k}}}} & \lbrack{E9}\rbrack \\ {{\overset{\overset{\_}{\_}}{p}}_{m,i,k} = {\frac{1}{N_{{Rx},i}} \cdot {\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N_{{Rx},i}}{\overset{\overset{\_}{\_}}{p}}_{m,i,j,k}}}} & \lbrack{E10}\rbrack \end{matrix}$

where:

-   -   N_(Rx,i)=number of receivers, for which valid smoothed and         bias-free ACF measurement data p _(m,i,j,k) is available for         satellite i.

The minimum number of receivers is 2; otherwise no principal component analysis is carried out for this satellite.

Optional Step—Input Value Preparation: Combination of ACF Values from Different Chip Spacing Points

The averaged metrics of [E9] and [E10] can then be used to combine different chip spacing points with each other, e.g. by forming differences between two neighbouring chip spacing points: Δμ_(m,i,k)=Δμ_(m+1,i,k)−Δμ_(m,i,k)   [E11] p _(m,i,k) =p _(m+1,i,k) −p _(m,i,k)   [E12]

Note: An in-place notation of the parameters (meaning that the same variable appears on both sides of the equality sign) as used in programming languages is taken here so that with ignoring this section the whole algorithm remains valid for the case when not using this step.

Input Value Preparation: Normalization of Bias-Free Measurement Data

To ensure unit variance of the bias-free and zero-centered measurement data, the data is normalized by the standard deviation of a Gaussian distribution characterizing the noise of the measurement data:

$\begin{matrix} {X_{m,i,k} = \frac{{\overset{\overset{\_}{\_}}{p}}_{m,i,k}}{\sigma_{m}\left( {el}_{i,k} \right)}} & \lbrack{E13}\rbrack \end{matrix}$

where:

-   -   el_(i,k)=elevation angle of satellite i at epoch t_(k),     -   σ_(m)(el)=elevation-dependent standard deviation of the m^(th)         ACF chip spacing point's (or OPTIONALLY of chip spacing point         pair's) smoothed and bias-free measurements; determined offline         from long measurement campaigns and then configured.

The X_(m,i,k) data is now assumed to behave like Gaussian random variables following a standard normal distribution N(0,1) in the absence of a signal deformation fault on satellite i.

Taking into account [E8], [E13] can be expressed in vector notation as

$\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} {{\overset{->}{X}}_{i,k} = {\left\{ X_{m,i,k} \right\} = \left\lbrack {\frac{{\overset{\overset{\_}{\_}}{p}}_{1,i,k}}{\sigma_{1}\left( {el}_{i,k} \right)}\mspace{14mu}\ldots\mspace{14mu}\frac{{\overset{\overset{\_}{\_}}{p}}_{M,i,k}}{\sigma_{M}\left( {el}_{i,k} \right)}} \right\rbrack}} \\ {= {\left\lbrack {{\overset{\_}{p}}_{1,i,k} - {\mu_{1,i,k}\mspace{14mu}\ldots\mspace{14mu}{\overset{\_}{p}}_{M,i,k}} - \mu_{M,i,k}} \right\rbrack \cdot \begin{bmatrix} \frac{1}{\sigma_{1}\left( {el}_{i,k} \right)} & \ldots & 0 \\ \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ 0 & \ldots & \frac{1}{\sigma_{M}\left( {el}_{i,k} \right)} \end{bmatrix}}} \\ {= {\left\lbrack {{\overset{\_}{p}}_{1,i,k} - {\mu_{1,i,k}\mspace{14mu}\ldots\mspace{14mu}{\overset{\_}{p}}_{M,i,k}} - \mu_{M,i,k}} \right\rbrack \cdot \sum\limits^{- 1}}} \\ {= {\left\lbrack {{\overset{\overset{->}{\_}}{p}}_{i,k} - {\overset{->}{\mu}}_{i,k}} \right\rbrack \cdot \sum\limits^{- 1}}} \end{matrix} & \lbrack{E14}\rbrack \end{matrix}$

PCA Algorithm—Explicit Approach

In the explicit (non-recursive) approach, PCA works batch-wise meaning that all normalized data since process start is used to determine the principal components via the correlation or covariance matrix R_(i,n) of the whole data set (i.e. PCA of matrix R_(i,n) is done for a plurality of time epochs t_(k) with k=1 . . . n in common). The explicit approach is typically used for an early stage of the inventive method, i.e. for low n. The eigendecomposition of this matrix R_(i,n) can then be used for a principal component analysis:

$\begin{matrix} {R_{i,n} = {{\frac{1}{n - 1} \cdot X_{i,n}^{T} \cdot X_{i,n}} = {{\frac{1}{n - 1} \cdot X_{i,n}^{T} \cdot \begin{bmatrix} {\overset{->}{X}}_{i,1} \\ \vdots \\ {\overset{->}{X}}_{i,n} \end{bmatrix}} = {P_{i,n} \cdot \Lambda_{i,n} \cdot P_{i,n}^{T}}}}} & \lbrack{E15}\rbrack \end{matrix}$

where:

-   -   n=number of measurement epochs since algorithm initialization,     -   X_(i,n)=normalized data for ACF point m and satellite i at         measurement time epoch t_(k) with k=1, . . . n,     -   P_(i,n)=orthogonal matrix containing the eigenvectors of R_(i,n)         so that it holds P^(T)=P⁻¹,     -   Λ_(i,n)=diagonal matrix containing the eigenvalues of R_(i,n).         Each eigenvector in P_(i,n) forms an eigenpair with the         eigenvalue of the same column in Λ_(i,n).

Since in the present case the data is scaled to unit variance the correlation matrix is used.

PCA Algorithm—Derivation of Recursive Approach

In a real-time environment this batch-wise approach is disadvantageous as a huge amount of sample data would have to be stored, at least for higher n. Accordingly, at later stages of the inventive method, i.e. for large n, a recursive PCA is applied. A recursive correlation matrix update suitable for the invention is described below. Note that a recursive PCA is described in [RD01] and [RD02].

In a batch-wise consideration, for the correlation matrix the whole time series since process start from t₁ to t_(k+1) (with n=k+1) needs to be taken into account:

$\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} {X_{i,n} = {X_{i,{1->{k + 1}}} = {\begin{bmatrix} {\overset{->}{X}}_{i,1} \\ \vdots \\ {\overset{->}{X}}_{i,{k + 1}} \end{bmatrix} = {\begin{bmatrix} {{\overset{->}{\overset{\_}{p}}}_{i,1} - {\overset{->}{\mu}}_{i,{k + 1}}} \\ \vdots \\ {{\overset{->}{\overset{\_}{p}}}_{i,{k + 1}} - {\overset{->}{\mu}}_{i,{k + 1}}} \end{bmatrix} \cdot \sum\limits^{- 1}}}}} \\ {= {\left\lbrack {\begin{bmatrix} {\overset{->}{\overset{\_}{p}}}_{i,1} \\ \vdots \\ {\overset{->}{\overset{\_}{p}}}_{i,k} \\ {\overset{->}{\overset{\_}{p}}}_{i,{k + 1}} \end{bmatrix} - \begin{bmatrix} {\overset{->}{\mu}}_{i,{k + 1}} \\ \vdots \\ {\overset{->}{\mu}}_{i,{k + 1}} \\ {\overset{->}{\mu}}_{i,{k + 1}} \end{bmatrix}} \right\rbrack \cdot \sum\limits^{- 1}}} \\ {= {\begin{bmatrix} {{\overset{\_}{p}}_{i,1} - {\begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ \vdots \\ 1 \end{bmatrix} \cdot {\overset{->}{\mu}}_{i,{k + 1}}}} \\ {{\overset{->}{\overset{\_}{p}}}_{i,{k + 1}} - {\overset{->}{\mu}}_{i,{k + 1}}} \end{bmatrix} \cdot \sum\limits^{- 1}}} \\ {= {\begin{bmatrix} {{\overset{\_}{p}}_{i,1} - {\begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ \vdots \\ 1 \end{bmatrix} \cdot {\overset{->}{\mu}}_{i,k}} - {{\begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ \vdots \\ 1 \end{bmatrix} \cdot \Delta}{\overset{->}{\mu}}_{i,{k + 1}}}} \\ {{\overset{->}{\overset{\_}{p}}}_{i,{k + 1}} - {\overset{->}{\mu}}_{i,{k + 1}}} \end{bmatrix} \cdot \sum\limits^{- 1}}} \\ {= \begin{bmatrix} {\left( {{\overset{\_}{p}}_{i,1} - {\begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ \vdots \\ 1 \end{bmatrix} \cdot {\overset{->}{\mu}}_{i,k}}} \right) \cdot {\sum^{- 1}{{{- \begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ \vdots \\ 1 \end{bmatrix}} \cdot \Delta}{{\overset{->}{\mu}}_{i,{k + 1}} \cdot \sum\limits^{- 1}}}}} \\ {\left( {{\overset{->}{\overset{\_}{p}}}_{i,{k + 1}} - {\overset{->}{\mu}}_{i,{k + 1}}} \right) \cdot \sum\limits^{- 1}} \end{bmatrix}} \\ {= \begin{bmatrix} {X_{i,{1->k}} - {{\begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ \vdots \\ 1 \end{bmatrix} \cdot \Delta}{{\overset{->}{\mu}}_{i,{k + 1}} \cdot \sum\limits^{- 1}}}} \\ {\overset{->}{X}}_{i,{k + 1}} \end{bmatrix}} \end{matrix} & \lbrack{E16}\rbrack \end{matrix}$

where:

-   -   n=k+1=number of sample sets (i.e. measurement time epochs) from         time epoch t₁ to t_(k+1),     -   {right arrow over (μ)}_(i,k+1)={right arrow over         (u)}_(i,k)+Δ{right arrow over (μ)}_(i,k+1)=1×M vector of         receiver bias estimates as determined over the whole time         series,     -   Σ⁻¹=M×M diagonal matrix of inverse standard deviations as         determined over the whole time series.

In accordance with [E15] the correlation matrix R_(i,k+1) of the time series X_(i,1→k+1) is then given as:

$\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} {R_{i,{k + 1}} = {\frac{1}{n_{k + 1} - 1} \cdot X_{i,{1->{k + 1}}}^{T} \cdot X_{i,{1->{k + 1}}}}} \\ {= {\frac{1}{n_{k + 1} - 1} \cdot \begin{bmatrix} {X_{i,{1->k}} - {{\begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ \vdots \\ 1 \end{bmatrix} \cdot \Delta}{{\overset{->}{\mu}}_{i,{k + 1}} \cdot \sum\limits^{- 1}}}} \\ {\overset{->}{X}}_{i,{k + 1}} \end{bmatrix}^{T} \cdot}} \\ {\begin{bmatrix} {X_{i,{1->k}} - {{\begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ \vdots \\ 1 \end{bmatrix} \cdot \Delta}{{\overset{->}{\mu}}_{i,{k + 1}} \cdot \sum\limits^{- 1}}}} \\ {\overset{->}{X}}_{i,{k + 1}} \end{bmatrix}} \\ {= {\frac{1}{n_{k + 1} - 1} \cdot \begin{bmatrix} {{X_{i,{1->k}}^{T} \cdot X_{i,{1->k}}} +} \\ {\sum\limits^{- 1}{{{{\overset{\longrightarrow}{\Delta\mu}}_{i,{k + 1}}^{T}\begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ \vdots \\ 1 \end{bmatrix}}^{T}\begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ \vdots \\ 1 \end{bmatrix}}\Delta{\overset{->}{\mu}}_{i,{k + 1}}{\sum\limits^{- 1} -}}} \\ {{\sum\limits^{- 1}{{{\overset{\longrightarrow}{\Delta\mu}}_{i,{k + 1}}^{T}\begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ \vdots \\ 1 \end{bmatrix}}^{T}X_{i,{1->k}}}} -} \\ {{X_{i,{1->k}}^{T}\begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ \vdots \\ 1 \end{bmatrix}}{\overset{\longrightarrow}{\Delta\mu}}_{i,{k + 1}}{\sum\limits^{- 1}{{+ {\overset{->}{X}}_{i,{k + 1}}^{T}} \cdot {\overset{->}{X}}_{i,{k + 1}}}}} \end{bmatrix}}} \end{matrix} & \lbrack{E17}\rbrack \end{matrix}$

where:

-   -   n_(k+1)=k+1=number of sample sets (i.e. measurement time epochs)         from time epoch t₁ to t_(k+1).

This equation can be simplified due to the following side condition:

$\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} {{\begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ \vdots \\ 1 \end{bmatrix}^{T}X_{i,{1->k}}} = {\sum\limits_{n = 1}^{k}{\left( {{\overset{->}{\overset{\_}{p}}}_{i,n} - {\overset{->}{\mu}}_{i,k}} \right) \cdot \sum\limits^{- 1}}}} \\ {= {\left( {{\sum\limits_{n = 1}^{k}{\overset{->}{\overset{\_}{p}}}_{i,n}} - {k \cdot {\overset{->}{\mu}}_{i,k}}} \right) \cdot \sum\limits^{- 1}}} \\ {= {{\left( {{\sum\limits_{n = 1}^{k}{\overset{->}{\overset{\_}{p}}}_{i,n}} - {{k \cdot \frac{1}{k}}{\sum\limits_{n = 1}^{k}{\overset{->}{\overset{\_}{p}}}_{i,n}}}} \right) \cdot \sum\limits^{- 1}} = \overset{->}{0}}} \end{matrix} & \lbrack{E18}\rbrack \end{matrix}$

Using this condition [E17] simplifies to

$\begin{matrix} {R_{i,{k + 1}} = {{\frac{1}{n_{k + 1} - 1} \cdot \left\lbrack {X_{i,{1->k}}^{T} \cdot X_{i,{1->k}}} \right\rbrack} + {\frac{1}{n_{k + 1} - 1} \cdot \left\lbrack {\sum\limits^{- 1}{\Delta{{{\overset{->}{\mu}}_{i,{k + 1}}^{T}\begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ \vdots \\ 1 \end{bmatrix}}^{T}\begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ \vdots \\ 1 \end{bmatrix}}\Delta{\overset{->}{\mu}}_{i,{k + 1}}\sum\limits^{- 1}}} \right\rbrack} + {\frac{1}{n_{k + 1} - 1} \cdot \left\lbrack {{\overset{->}{X}}_{i,{k + 1}}^{T} \cdot {\overset{->}{X}}_{i,{k + 1}}} \right\rbrack}}} & \lbrack{E19}\rbrack \end{matrix}$

Using a recursive notation by introducing R_(i,k) leads to:

$\begin{matrix} {R_{i,{k + 1}} = {{\frac{n_{k} - 1}{n_{k + 1} - 1} \cdot R_{i,k}} + {\frac{n_{k}}{n_{k + 1} - 1} \cdot \left\lbrack {\sum\limits^{- 1}{\Delta{\overset{->}{\mu}}_{i,{k + 1}}^{T}\Delta{\overset{->}{\mu}}_{i,{k + 1}}\sum\limits^{- 1}}} \right\rbrack} + {\frac{1}{n_{k + 1} - 1} \cdot \left\lbrack {{\overset{->}{X}}_{i,{k + 1}}^{T} \cdot {\overset{->}{X}}_{i,{k + 1}}} \right\rbrack}}} & \lbrack{E20}\rbrack \end{matrix}$

Using the fact that in the present use case it holds n_(k+1)=n_(k+1) (since n_(k+1)=k+1 and n_(k)=k), it follows:

$\begin{matrix} {R_{i,{k + 1}} = {{\frac{n_{k} - 1}{n_{k}} \cdot R_{i,k}} + \left\lbrack {\sum\limits^{- 1}{\Delta{\overset{->}{\mu}}_{i,{k + 1}}^{T}\Delta{\overset{->}{\mu}}_{i,{k + 1}}\sum\limits^{- 1}}} \right\rbrack + {\frac{1}{n_{k}} \cdot \left\lbrack {{\overset{->}{X}}_{i,{k + 1}}^{T} \cdot {\overset{->}{X}}_{i,{k + 1}}} \right\rbrack}}} & \lbrack{E21}\rbrack \end{matrix}$

Inserting the substitution

$\begin{matrix} {\tau = \frac{1}{n_{k}}} & \lbrack{E22}\rbrack \end{matrix}$

into [E21] yields:

$\begin{matrix} {R_{i,{k + 1}} = {{\left( {1 - \tau} \right) \cdot R_{i,k}} + \left\lbrack {\sum\limits^{- 1}{\Delta{\overset{->}{\mu}}_{i,{k + 1}}^{T}\Delta{\overset{->}{\mu}}_{i,{k + 1}}\sum\limits^{- 1}}} \right\rbrack + {\tau \cdot \left\lbrack {{\overset{->}{X}}_{i,{k + 1}}^{T} \cdot {\overset{->}{X}}_{i,{k + 1}}} \right\rbrack}}} & \lbrack{E23}\rbrack \end{matrix}$

Letting now the value of τ deviate from its original definition from [E22] by setting it to a fixed value introduces a so-called forgetting factor. This means that older data gets exponentially ignored. τ can for instance be chosen to be 1/60, i.e. in line with the smoothing time constant in [E5]. Due to the introduced forgetting factor, the time period for which measurement data has an impact on the correlation matrix is limited and it can be assumed that the standard deviations (being configured) are constant over this time period as the elevation angle does not change a lot in this time period.

Assuming that from the previous epoch t_(k) the principal components of the symmetric correlation matrix R_(i,k) are known:

$\begin{matrix} {R_{i,k} = {{P_{i,k}\Lambda_{i,k}P_{i,k}^{T}} = {\begin{bmatrix} {\overset{->}{v}}_{1,i,k} & \ldots & {\overset{->}{v}}_{M,i,k} \end{bmatrix} \cdot \begin{bmatrix} \lambda_{1,i\;,k} & \ldots & 0 \\ \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ 0 & \ldots & \mu_{M,i,k} \end{bmatrix} \cdot P_{i,n}^{T}}}} & \lbrack{E24}\rbrack \end{matrix}$

where:

-   -   P_(i,k)=orthogonal matrix containing column-wise the         eigenvectors v _(m,i,k) of R_(i,k) so that it holds p_(i,k)         ^(T)=p_(i,k) ⁻¹,     -   Λ_(i,k)=diagonal matrix containing the eigenvalues λ_(m,i,k) of         R_(i,k).

At t_(k+1) the situation can be expressed by:

$\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} {R_{i,{k + 1}} = {{P_{i,{k + 1}} \cdot \Lambda_{i,{k + 1}}} + P_{i,{k + 1}}^{T}}} \\ {= {{\left( {1 - \tau} \right) \cdot R_{i,k}} + \left\lbrack {\sum\limits^{- 1}{\Delta{\overset{->}{\mu}}_{i,{k + 1}}^{T}\Delta{\overset{->}{\mu}}_{i,{k + 1}}\sum\limits^{- 1}}} \right\rbrack + {\tau \cdot}}} \\ {\left\lbrack {{\overset{->}{X}}_{i,{k + 1}}^{T} \cdot {\overset{->}{X}}_{i,{k + 1}}} \right\rbrack} \\ {= {{\left( {1 - \tau} \right) \cdot P_{i,k} \cdot \Lambda_{i,k} \cdot P_{i,k}^{T}} + \left\lbrack {\sum\limits^{- 1}{\Delta{\overset{->}{\mu}}_{i,{k + 1}}^{T}\Delta{\overset{->}{\mu}}_{i,{k + 1}}\sum\limits^{- 1}}} \right\rbrack + {\tau \cdot}}} \\ {\left\lbrack {{\overset{->}{X}}_{i,{k + 1}}^{T} \cdot {\overset{->}{X}}_{i,{k + 1}}} \right\rbrack} \\ {= {P_{i,k} \cdot \left\lbrack {{\left( {1 - \tau} \right) \cdot \Lambda_{i,k}} + {{P_{i,k}^{T}\left\lbrack {\sum\limits^{- 1}{\Delta{\overset{->}{\mu}}_{i,{k + 1}}^{T}\Delta{\overset{->}{\mu}}_{i,{k + 1}}\sum\limits^{- 1}}} \right\rbrack}P_{i,k}}} \right\rbrack \cdot}} \\ {P_{i,k}^{T} + {\tau \cdot \left\lbrack {{\overset{->}{X}}_{i,{k + 1}}^{T} \cdot {\overset{->}{X}}_{i,{k + 1}}} \right\rbrack}} \\ {= {{P_{i,k} \cdot \left\lbrack {{\left( {1 - \tau} \right) \cdot \Lambda_{i,k}} + {{\overset{->}{\overset{\_}{\mu}}}_{i,k} \cdot {\overset{->}{\overset{\_}{\mu}}}_{i,k}^{T}}} \right\rbrack \cdot P_{i,k}^{T}} + {\tau \cdot \left\lbrack {{\overset{->}{X}}_{i,{k + 1}}^{T} \cdot {\overset{->}{X}}_{i,{k + 1}}} \right\rbrack}}} \end{matrix} & \lbrack{E25}\rbrack \\ {\mspace{79mu}{{where}\text{:}}} & \; \\ {\mspace{79mu}{{\overset{->}{\overset{\_}{\mu}}}_{i,k} = {P_{i,k}^{T} \cdot {\sum\limits^{- 1}{{\cdot \Delta}{\overset{->}{\mu}}_{i,{k + 1}}^{T}}}}}} & \lbrack{E26}\rbrack \end{matrix}$

For the term (1−τ)·Λ_(i,k)+{right arrow over (μ)} _(i,k)·{right arrow over (μ)} ^(T) _(i,k) in [E25] an eigendecomposition into eigenvector matrix P′_(i,k) and eigenvalue matrix Λ′_(i,k) can be carried out as described in [RD02] and [RD03]:

$\begin{matrix} {{{\left( {1 - \tau} \right) \cdot \Lambda_{i,k}} + {{{\overset{->}{\overset{\_}{\mu}}}_{i,k}}^{2} \cdot \frac{{\overset{->}{\overset{\_}{\mu}}}_{i,k}}{{\overset{->}{\overset{\_}{\mu}}}_{i,k}} \cdot \frac{{\overset{->}{\overset{\_}{\mu}}}_{i,k}^{T}}{{\overset{->}{\overset{\_}{\mu}}}_{i,k}}}} = {P_{i,k}^{\prime} \cdot \Lambda_{i,k}^{\prime} \cdot P_{i,k}^{\prime\; T}}} & \lbrack{E27}\rbrack \end{matrix}$

Inserting this eigendecomposition into [E25] yields:

$\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} {R_{i,{k + 1}} = {{P_{i,k} \cdot \left\lbrack {P_{i,k}^{\prime} \cdot \Lambda_{i,k}^{\prime} \cdot P_{i,k}^{\prime\; T}} \right\rbrack \cdot P_{i,k}^{T}} + {\tau \cdot \left\lbrack {{\overset{->}{X}}_{i,{k + 1}}^{T} \cdot {\overset{->}{X}}_{i,{k + 1}}} \right\rbrack}}} \\ {= {P_{i,k} \cdot \left\lbrack {{P_{i,k}^{\prime} \cdot \Lambda_{i,k}^{\prime} \cdot P_{i,k}^{\prime\; T}} + {{\tau \cdot {P_{i,k}^{T}\left\lbrack {{\overset{->}{X}}_{i,{k + 1}}^{T} \cdot {\overset{->}{X}}_{i,{k + 1}}} \right\rbrack}}P_{i,k}}} \right\rbrack \cdot P_{i,k}^{T}}} \\ {= {P_{i,k} \cdot P_{i,k}^{\prime} \cdot \left\lbrack {\Lambda_{i,k}^{\prime} + {{\tau \cdot P_{i,k}^{\prime\; T} \cdot {P_{i,k}^{T}\left\lbrack {{\overset{->}{X}}_{i,{k + 1}}^{T} \cdot {\overset{->}{X}}_{i,{k + 1}}} \right\rbrack}}{P_{i,k} \cdot P_{i,k}^{\prime}}}} \right\rbrack \cdot P_{i,k}^{\prime\; T} \cdot}} \\ {P_{i,k}^{T}} \\ {= {P_{i,k}^{''} \cdot \left\lbrack {\Lambda_{i,k}^{\prime} + {{\tau \cdot {P_{i,k}^{''\; T}\left\lbrack {{\overset{->}{X}}_{i,{k + 1}}^{T} \cdot {\overset{->}{X}}_{i,{k + 1}}} \right\rbrack}}P_{i,k}^{''}}} \right\rbrack \cdot P_{i,k}^{''\; T}}} \\ {= {P_{i,k}^{''} \cdot \left\lbrack {\Lambda_{i,k}^{\prime} + {\tau \cdot {\overset{->}{Z}}_{i,k} \cdot {\overset{->}{Z}}_{i,k}^{T}}} \right\rbrack \cdot P_{i,k}^{''\; T}}} \end{matrix} & \lbrack{E28}\rbrack \\ {\mspace{79mu}{{where}\text{:}}} & \; \\ {\mspace{76mu}{P_{i,k}^{''} = {P_{i,k} \cdot P_{i,k}^{\prime}}}} & \lbrack{E29}\rbrack \\ {\mspace{79mu}{and}} & \; \\ {\mspace{79mu}{{\overset{->}{Z}}_{i,k} = {P_{i,{k + 1}}^{''\; T} \cdot {\overset{->}{X}}_{i,{k + 1}}^{T}}}} & \lbrack{E30}\rbrack \end{matrix}$

For the term Λ′_(i,k)+τ·{right arrow over (Z)}_(i,k)·{right arrow over (Z)}_(i,k) ^(T) in [E28] an eigendecomposition into eigenvector matrix P′″_(i,k) and eigenvalue matrix Λ_(i,k+1) can be carried out as described in [RD02] and [RD03]:

$\begin{matrix} {{\Lambda_{i,k}^{\prime} + {\tau \cdot {{\overset{->}{Z}}_{i,k}}^{2} \cdot \frac{{\overset{->}{Z}}_{i,k}}{{\overset{->}{Z}}_{i,k}} \cdot \frac{{\overset{->}{Z}}_{i,k}^{T}}{{\overset{->}{Z}}_{i,k}}}} = {P_{i,k}^{\prime\prime\prime} \cdot \Lambda_{i,{k + 1}} \cdot P_{i,k}^{{\prime\prime\prime}\; T}}} & \lbrack{E31}\rbrack \end{matrix}$

Inserting this eigendecomposition into [E28] yields:

$\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} {R_{i,{k + 1}} = {P_{i,k}^{''} \cdot \left\lbrack {P_{i,k}^{\prime\prime\prime} \cdot \Lambda_{i,{k + 1}} \cdot P_{i,k}^{{\prime\prime\prime}\; T}} \right\rbrack \cdot P_{i,k}^{''\; T}}} \\ {= {P_{i,k}^{''} \cdot P_{i,k}^{\prime\prime\prime} \cdot \Lambda_{i,{k + 1}} \cdot P_{i,k}^{{\prime\prime\prime}\; T} \cdot P_{i,k}^{''\; T}}} \\ {= {P_{i,{k + 1}} \cdot \Lambda_{i,{k + 1}} \cdot P_{i,{k + 1}}^{T}}} \end{matrix} & \lbrack{E32}\rbrack \\ {{where}\text{:}} & \; \\ {P_{i,{k + 1}} = {P_{i,k}^{''} \cdot P_{i,k}^{\prime\prime\prime}}} & \lbrack{E33}\rbrack \end{matrix}$

This last step completes the transition of the initially explicit eigendecomposition process of the correlation matrix R into a recursive process.

PCA Algorithm: Recursive Approach

The PCA transformation is implemented as a recursive algorithm and performed such that:

-   -   Potentially correlated input variables are transformed into         uncorrelated, orthogonal output variables.     -   The output variables are ordered according to their variance in         such a way that the first principal component has the largest         possible variance.

Using the formulas from the previous step above, the eigenpairs—contained in the combination of orthogonal eigenvector matrix P_(i,k+1) and diagonal eigenvalue matrix Λ_(i,k+1)—can be updated in an iterative manner using the eigenpairs of the previous epoch t_(k) (i.e. P_(i,k) and Λ_(i,k)) and the metrics {right arrow over (X)}_(i,k+1) and Δ{right arrow over (μ)}_(i,k+1) from the current epoch t_(k+1).

PCA Algorithm: Initial Eigendecomposition for the Recursive Approach

For the recursive algorithm to work an initial orthogonal eigendecomposition of the correlation matrix R at epoch t₁ is necessary: R _(i,1) =P _(i,1)·Λ_(i,1) ·P _(i,1) ^(T)   [E34]

This initial eigendecomposition can either be done batch-wise for a plurality of initial time epochs or offline from a long set of signal deformation fault-free measurements and then configured.

PCA Algorithm: Determination of Signal Deformation Monitor Test Metric SQM (Signal Quality Monitor) from Principal Components

Using the principal components matrix PC (also called loading matrix) in form of the M eigenvectors {right arrow over (v)}_(m,i,k+1) (with m=1, . . . , M) of P_(i,k+1), sorted from large to small based on their corresponding eigenvalues λ_(m,i,k+1), the normalized and bias-removed measurement vector at epoch t_(k+1), i.e. {right arrow over (X)}_(i,k+1), can be transformed from the original space of variables to a new space of variables, which are uncorrelated over the dataset in the signal deformation fault-free case:

$\begin{matrix} {{\overset{->}{T}}_{i,{k + 1}} = {{{PC}_{i,{k + 1}}^{T} \cdot {\overset{->}{X}}_{i,{k + 1}}^{T}} = {\begin{bmatrix} {\overset{->}{v}}_{{largest},i,{k + 1}}^{T} \\ \vdots \\ {\overset{->}{v}}_{{smallest},i,{k + 1}}^{T} \end{bmatrix} \cdot {\overset{->}{X}}_{i,{k + 1}}^{T}}}} & \lbrack{E35}\rbrack \end{matrix}$

However, not all the principal components need necessarily to be kept. It is possible to perform a dimensionality reduction by keeping only the first few largest principal components.

The signal deformation monitor test metric SQM at epoch t_(k+1) is finally determined as square sum of the entries of vector {right arrow over (T)}_(i,k+1), where {right arrow over (T)}_(i,k+1) has been determined using either all M principal components or at least those with the two largest eigenvalues: SQM_(i,k+1) ={right arrow over (T)} _(i,k+1) ^(T) ·{right arrow over (T)} _(i,k+1) ={right arrow over (X)} _(i,k+1)·PC_(i,k+1)·PC_(i,k+1) ^(T) ·{right arrow over (X)} _(i,k+1) ^(T)   [E36]

The test metric SQM_(i,k+1) follows a χ² distribution and indicates the absolute deviation of the new samples from the nominal condition.

Signal Quality Monitor (SQM) Test Decision

Since the test statistic SQM follows a χ² distribution the signal deformation monitor test is a one-sided test.

If the satellite status prior to the signal deformation monitoring is OK and the following inequality holds SQM_(i,n)>THR [E37]

where:

-   -   SQM_(i,n)=signal quality monitor test metric for satellite i at         measurement time epoch t_(n),     -   THR=the predefined monitor threshold.

the code signals of satellite i received at all GNSS receivers are determined to be unsuitable for position determination and are excluded.

5. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the present invention proposes a test metric for GNSS code signals received at GNSS receivers, wherein for each satellite i, a signal sent by that satellite i is received at the different GNSS receivers, and bias-removed, averaged over the receivers and normalized measurement values are derived out of autocorrelation function values from the received GNSS code signals, wherein a correlation matrix R_(i,n) is built from a matrix X_(i,n) containing the measurement values in the form of measurement value vectors {right arrow over (X)}_(i,k) from the present time epoch t_(n) and from previous time epochs t_(k) with k=1, . . . , n−1, wherein a principal component analysis is done of matrix R_(i,n), wherein a transformed vector {right arrow over (T)}_(i,n)=PC_(i,n) ^(T)·{right arrow over (X)}_(i,n) ^(T) is calculated, with PC_(i,n) containing at least two eigenvectors belonging to eigenpairs having the largest eigenvalues of all eigenpairs, wherein a signal quality monitor test metric SQM_(i,n) is built from the square sum of the entries of transformed vector {right arrow over (T)}_(i,n), and wherein if SQM_(i,n) is larger than a threshold THR, the signals of satellite i are disallowed for position determination at all GNSS receivers. The invention allows monitoring GNSS code signals with respect to satellite signal deformation with an improved integrity and continuity.

6. References

-   -   [AD01] ICAO Annex 10 to the Convention on International Civil         Aviation—

Aeronautical Telecommunications, Volume I, Radio Navigation Aids, (including Amendment 89). 999 University Street, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3C 5H7, November 2012

-   -   [AD02] Akos, D. M., Phelts, R. E., Mitelman, A., Pullen, S., and         Enge, P., “GPS-SPS Signal Quality Monitoring (SQM),” Position,         Location and Navigation Symposium, Conference Proceedings         Addendum, 2000 IEEE, San Diego, Calif., March 2000.     -   [AD03] Mitelman, A. M., Phelts, R. E., Akos, D. M., Pullen, S.         P., and Enge, P. K., “Signal Deformations on Nominally Healthy         GPS Satellites,” Proceedings of the 2004 National Technical         Meeting of The Institute of Navigation, San Diego, Calif.,         January 2004, pp. 0-0     -   [AD04] R. E. Phelts, D. Akos, P. Enge, “Robust Signal Quality         Monitoring and Detection of Evil Waveforms,” Proceedings of ION         GPS 2000, Salt Lake City, Utah, Sep. 19-22, 2000, pp. 1180-1190     -   [AD05] Phelts, R. Eric, “Toward Real-Time SQM for WAAS: Improved         Detection Techniques”, Proc. ION GPS/GNSS 2003, 9-12 Sep. 2003,         Portland, Oreg., pp. 2739-2749     -   [AD06] F. Liu, M. Brenner, C. Y. Tang, “Signal Deformation         Monitoring Scheme Implemented in a Prototype Local Area         Augmentation System Ground Installation,” Proc. ION GNSS 2006,         Fort Worth, Tex., Sep. 26-29, 2006, pp. 367-380     -   [AD07] G. B. Kaplan, O. Içoglu, A. B. Yoldemir, and M. Sezgin,         “Real-time object detection using dynamic principal component         analysis,” in Proc. XIII Int. Conf. Ground Penetrating Radar,         Lecce, Italy, June 2010, pp. 369-374     -   [AD08] J. Rife, Pratap Misra: “Impact of Time-Correlation of         Monitor Statistic on Continuity of Safety-Critical Operations”         Proceedings of the 24th International Technical Meeting of the         Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation, Portland,         Oreg., Sep. 19-23, 2011, pp. 303-315     -   [AD09] EP 1 332 378 B1     -   [RD01] S. J. Qin, W. Li, and H. Yue, “Recursive PCA for adaptive         process monitoring”, in World Congress of the International         Federation of Automatic Control, pp. 85-90, 1999     -   [RD02] Bunch, J. R., Nielsen, C. P., Sorensen, D. C.: “Rank one         modification of the symmetric eigenproblem”, in Numerische         Mathematik, Volume 31, pp. 31-48 (1978)     -   [RD03] Gu, M. and Eisenstat, S., “A stable and efficient         algorithm for the rank-one modification of the symmetric         eigenproblem”. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications,         1994, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 1266-1276 

What is claimed is:
 1. A method for operating a plurality of GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) receivers, wherein for position determination, the GNSS receivers receive GNSS code signals belonging to signals sent from a multitude of satellites, and wherein each received GNSS code signal is correlated with a reference code signal generated by the receiving GNSS receiver to obtain an autocorrelation function (ACF^(obs)), wherein a multitude of function values of the autocorrelation function (ACF^(obs)) at different discrete chip spacings are analyzed and used in obtaining a test metric, wherein using the test metric, a decision is made whether the received GNSS code signals are suitable for position determination or unsuitable for position determination due to satellite signal deformation, and wherein the GNSS code signals found unsuitable for position determination are excluded from position determination, wherein for each satellite i, with i being a satellite index, using the test metric includes the following steps: a) for each time epoch t_(k) in which the GNSS receivers receive GNSS code signals belonging to the signal of the same carrier frequency sent from the satellite i, forming a vector {right arrow over (X)}_(i,k) of measurement values X_(m,i,k), with m being a chip spacing index, and k being a measurement time epoch index, and the respective measurement value X_(m,i,k) being derived from normalized and bias-removed function values of the autocorrelation functions (ACF^(obs)) of the GNSS code signals received at the GNSS receivers, combined for a multitude of the GNSS receivers; b) obtaining the correlation matrix R_(i,n) at time epoch t_(n) from the epoch-wise measurement value vectors {right arrow over (X)}_(i,k) obtained over a plurality of n time epochs t_(k) with k=1, . . . , n, with n being a monitoring time epoch index, which results in matrix ${X_{i,n} = \begin{bmatrix} {\overset{->}{X}}_{i,1} \\ \vdots \\ {\overset{->}{X}}_{i,n} \end{bmatrix}},$ in particular with R_(i,n)˜X^(T) _(i,n) X_(i,n) with X^(T) _(i,n) being the transpose matrix of X_(i,n); c) doing a principal component analysis on correlation matrix R_(i,n), thus obtaining an eigendecomposition of matrix R_(i,n) into a multitude of eigenpairs, being pairs of eigenvector and eigenvalue; d) calculating for time epoch t_(n) a signal quality monitor test metric SQM_(i,n) by transforming vector {right arrow over (X)}_(i,n) to vector {right arrow over (T)}_(i,n) via multiplication with principal component matrix PC_(i,n) (160) and forming the square sum of vector {right arrow over (T)}_(i,n)'s entries, wherein PC_(i,n) contains at least two eigenvectors of R_(i,n), with the eigenvectors chosen having the largest eigenvalues of all eigenpairs; e) comparing SQM_(i,n) to a predefined threshold value THR, and if SQM_(i,n) exceeds THR, the entirety of GNSS code signals received at all GNSS receivers belonging to the signal of the same carrier frequency sent by satellite i in time epoch t_(n) are considered unsuitable for position determination due to satellite signal deformation; wherein for subsequent time epochs having passed, the signal quality monitor test metric SQM_(i,n) is determined again, with n increasing by 1 for each time epoch having passed.
 2. The method according to claim 1, wherein in step a), a respective measurement value X_(m,i,k) is derived from one function value at a particular chip spacing, combined for said multitude of GNSS receivers.
 3. The method according to claim 1, wherein in step a), a respective measurement value X_(m,i,k) is derived from a combination of function values of different chip spacings, in particular from a difference of function values of two neighboring chip spacings, combined for said multitude of GNSS receivers.
 4. The method according to claim 1, wherein at least for some time epochs t_(n), in particular later time epochs t_(n), in step b) and c), obtaining the correlation matrix R_(i,n) and the principal component analysis is done recursively, taking into account eigenpairs obtained for a previous time epoch for the same satellite i.
 5. The method according to claim 4, wherein in an expression for calculating the correlation matrix R_(i,n) recursively, a forgetting factor τ is applied, such that the older a time epoch t_(k), the less it contributes to the expression for calculating the correlation matrix R_(i,n), wherein the forgetting factor performs an exponential weighting with respect to time.
 6. The method according to claim 1, wherein at least for some earlier time epochs t_(n) in step c), the principal component analysis is done for the respective correlation matrix R_(i,n) for a plurality of time epochs t_(k) with k=1 . . . n in common, where R_(i,n) is calculated with R_(i,n)=1/(n−1)* X^(T) _(i,n) X_(i,n), with n being the number of measurement epochs since algorithm initialization and X^(T) _(i,n) being the transpose matrix of X_(i,n).
 7. The method according to claim 1, wherein in step a), the respective measurement values X_(m,i,k) are derived from normalized and bias-removed function values of the autocorrelation functions (ACF^(obs)) of the GNSS code signals received at the GNSS receivers, averaged over the multitude of the GNSS receivers.
 8. The method according to claim 1, wherein in step a), for forming the measurement values X_(m,i,k) of vector {right arrow over (X)}_(i,k), the function values of the autocorrelation function (ACF^(obs)) undergo said bias removal, taking into account corresponding function values of an autocorrelation function that would result from a GNSS code signal received at receiver j affected only by expected signal deformation, in particular caused by satellite hardware (satBias_(m,i)) and/or receiver hardware (η_(m,j,k)) and/or signal processing, thus obtaining per GNSS receiver j a vector {right arrow over (p)} _(i,j,k) of difference values p _(m,i,j,k) for each time epoch t_(k) and each satellite i.
 9. The method according to claim 7, wherein in step a), for forming the measurement values X_(m,i,k) of vector {right arrow over (X)}_(i,k), the function values of the autocorrelation function (ACF^(obs)) undergo said bias removal, taking into account corresponding function values of an autocorrelation function that would result from a GNSS code signal received at receiver j affected only by expected signal deformation, in particular caused by satellite hardware (satBias_(m,i)) and/or receiver hardware (μ_(m,j,k)) and/or signal processing, thus obtaining per GNSS receiver j a vector {right arrow over (p)} _(i,j,k) of difference values p _(m,i,j,k) for each time epoch t_(k) and each satellite i, and further said averaging is done over a set of at least 2 GNSS receivers on the difference values p _(m,i,j,k) of the vector {right arrow over (p)} _(i,j,k), thus obtaining a vector {right arrow over (p)} _(i,k) of averaged values p _(m,i,k).
 10. The method according to claim 9, wherein in step a), for forming the measurement values X_(m,i,k) of vector {right arrow over (X)}_(i,k), said averaging is done over a set of at least 5 GNSS receivers on the difference values p _(m,i,j,k) of the vector {right arrow over (p)} _(i,j,k), thus obtaining a vector {right arrow over (p)} _(i,k) of averaged values p _(m,i,k).
 11. The method according to claim 9, wherein in step a), for forming the measurement values X_(m,i,k) of vector {right arrow over (X)}_(i,k), said averaging is done over a set of at least 7 GNSS receivers on the difference values p _(m,i,j,k) of the vector {right arrow over (p)} _(i,j,k), thus obtaining a vector {right arrow over (p)} _(i,k) of averaged values p _(m,i,k).
 12. The method according to claim 9, wherein in step a), for forming the measurement values X_(m,i,k) of vector {right arrow over (X)}_(i,k), said normalization is done on the vector {right arrow over (p)} _(i,k) of averaged values p _(m,i,k) by dividing the averaged values p _(m,i,k) with the 1-sigma standard deviations σ_(m) of Gaussian normal distributions describing the noise distribution in the fault-free case, thus obtaining the measurement values X_(m,i,k) of vector {right arrow over (X)}_(i,k).
 13. The method according to claim 1, wherein the correlation matrix R_(i,n) is built on smoothed function values where the smoothing is achieved by a noise reduction process based on low pass-filtering.
 14. The method according to claim 1, wherein in step d), matrix PC_(i,n) is based on all eigenvectors of R_(i,n).
 15. The method according to claim 1, wherein the chip spacing index m contains at least 3 chip spacings.
 16. The method according to claim 1, wherein the chip spacing index m contains at least 5 chip spacings.
 17. The method according to claim 1, wherein the chip spacings of the autocorrelation function values used in obtaining the test metric are chosen predominantly on the late side.
 18. The method according to claim 1, wherein in step e), if SQM_(i,n) exceeds THR in a time epoch t_(n) for satellite i, the entirety of GNSS code signals received at all GNSS receivers belonging to signals of the same carrier frequency sent by the same satellite i in a number of subsequent time epochs are considered unsuitable for position determination due to satellite signal deformation, too.
 19. A set of GNSS receivers, adapted for performing a method according to claim
 1. 